Politics of Disinformation. Группа авторов

account for 5% of total production.

Table 1.5 Media subjected to analysis

Categories	Matches	%
Multimedia	261	60.1
Social networks	115	26.5
Fact-checking platforms	19	4.4
Newspapers	14	3.2
Online newspapers	6	1.4
Television	6	1.4
Internet	4	0.9
RSS	3	0.7
Tech companies	2	0.5
Group forums	2	0.5
Magazines	1	0.2
Radio	1	0.2

      Methodological Trends

An analysis of the methodologies used in studies on disinformation (Table 1.6) shows that a qualitative approach is the most widely used (55.5%), followed by the quantitative approach (32%) and mixed solutions (12.4%). Additionally, there is a greater proliferation of single-method studies. Contributions that focus on reviews of the literature or essays, which are often difficult to distinguish, have been the most numerous (27%) and 6correspond to an initial stage marked by a concern for conceptual precision, with complex equivalences in the different languages.

Table 1.6 Methods employed articles on disinformation in WoS

---

---

	Qualitative	Quantitative	Mixed	Matches	%	Sample
			SINGLE-METHOD
Case study	36		2	38	8.8	Fletcher et al. 2020
Content analysis	30	23	26	79	18.2	Engesser et al. 2017
Ethnography	11			11	2.5	Farkas et al. 2018
Experimental designs (survey)		44		44	10.1	Bode and Vraga 2015
Focus group	5			5	1.2	Amazeen 2019
Interview	26			26	6.0	Brandtzaeg et al. 2016
Literature review/essay	115	1	1	117	27.0	Tandoc et al. 2018
Network analysis6 clusters		8		8	1.8	Brummette et al. 2018
Survey		57	6	63	14.5	Weeks 2015
Web analytics		2	1	3	0.7	Nelson and Taneja 2018
			MULTI-METHOD
Content analysis + ethnography			1	1	0.2	Lu and Pan 2020
Content analysis + focus group